Intelligibility

Okay, so now that I feel a ton of pressure to make a really good post, and I have to say that I am almost too confused to make some coherent comments on this particular chapter. Maybe the problem lies with the fact that I do not have a good idea of what intelligibility means.

I looked the term up online and found this definition on Wikipedia (I know its a sucky source but it is also sometimes provides the best summarizing information):

"In philosophy, intelligibility is what can be comprehended by the human mind. The intelligible method is thought thinking itself, or the human mind reflecting. Plato referred to the intelligible realm of mathematics, forms, first principles, logical deduction, and the dialectical method. The intelligible realm of thought thinking about thought does not necessarily require any visual images, sensual impressions, and material causes for the contents of mind. Descartes referred to this method of thought thinking about itself, without the possible illusions of the senses. Kant made similar claims about a prior knowledge. A priori knowledge is claimed to be independent of the content of experience." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligibility_(philosophy))

I guess this makes me think of intelligibility as a more technical term for understanding, and it relates to the way in which Paths Lab connects to Paths class. We learn all the concepts and talk about the abstract idea of understanding through emotion, or understanding as an application of knowlege, and today (Monday) in class we read articles which relate to the technical "brain" side of it, like experiments and proof that what we are thinking and discussing really aides to the achievement of understanding and articles which better define what understanding really is.

I like the quote, "a desire for understanding is, or should be wholly relativized. What needs to be understood will depend entirely on the assumptions within a society at a particular time...So do not expect any timeless thoughts about desires for understanding or intelligibility (Mason 54)". I think that this shows how understanding relates to this idea of intelligibility. You cannot understand something outside of what your mind, or the collective mind of society, in this case, has defined or taught. You cannot relate a new concept without first conceptualizing an older, steadfast idea to which the new concept can relate.

The article we read for Monday showed a figure, which marissa talked about in her post, where understanding was built up with the introduction of a new problem. However, there was no point, after the first problem in which the understanding fell below the initial starting point because each new concept was built apon old ideas. I think it would be interesting to introduce something completely unrelated or unintelligible and see what sort of graph would result. Would there even be an increase in understanding with no past information to build from?